Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 10, 2024 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

59:46

Racism Drives Black People Senile

Jared Taylor wonders how "structural racism" makes black people go goofy. He also discusses Marion Marechal, mass deportation, infant homicide, and sanity in Sweden.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to Radio Renaissance.
	I'm your host, Jared Taylor, with American Renaissance.
	And today, I must dispense with my indispensable co-host, Paul Kersey.
	The reason is Mr. Kersey is in North Carolina, engaged in hurricane relief.
	So, all hail to Mr.
	Kersey and the good work that he's doing for the good people in North Carolina.
	I expect to be back next week.
	Perhaps he can tell us about the things he did and observed.
	Well, as usual, we'll begin with comments from listeners.
	The first one is, last week someone wanted to know if white men should ever join the military, given its obvious and increasing anti-white biases.
	How about going to college?
	Should smart young whites who already are inclined to doubt the dogma go to university, especially the better ones, or should they avoid them altogether given the risks of indoctrination?
	Well, I had an ambiguous answer about joining the military.
	I think under some certain circumstances, it can be a good idea for people who are able to resist the indoctrination.
	In the case of universities, my answer is much more unequivocal.
	I think you should go.
	You should go, even if you are not able to resist the indoctrination immediately.
	Later on, after you get out of college, you may be able to shake all of that silliness out of your system.
	Going to university gives you skills that will make you more marketable, probably will give you a better start in life, and so by all means, go.
	And if you can get into a top-flight university, even better.
	There is no reason why white people should stay away from those places, especially if they already have some kind of racial consciousness and they can resist the foolishness with which the instructors will try to fill them.
	The fact is, more and more young people have seen through the rubbish.
	And even at a campus like Yale or Dartmouth, you're probably going to find some wide-away white people.
	You just have to keep quiet, keep your head down, and learn the stuff you need to have a trade or a profession.
	And so, yes, go to college.
	If you have any inclination and talent for it at all, do go to college.
	Here's another comment.
	In any given year, each service academy has a fair number of Asian graduates, and they're often very successful.
	From their ranks, the senior policymaking generals and admirals are likely to be chosen.
	It seems to me it would be easy to recruit an officer who is ethnically Chinese to spy for China.
	He would have access to enormous amounts of sensitive classified information which would be immensely useful to the Chinese government.
	Blood is stronger than DEI, says our listener.
	Well, this is something that I've been worrying about for years.
	Officially, the American security agencies are not supposed to do any kind of racial profiling.
	But the fact is, if you look back over the years, you'll find that large numbers of Chinese naturalized citizens and some actual U.S.-born citizens have spied for China, not only for industry, but in the military.
	And China is one of those unusual countries that does not bother to train spies.
	That was the usual way in the Cold War.
	The Soviet Union, they would have spy schools.
	They'd really train people to speak English or some other European language.
	Learn how to fit in, sneak their way into some kind of place within the system.
	The Chinese never bothered with that because they already know there are so many Chinese all around the world who are embedded in high-tech companies or in the military.
	They just approach them and they appeal to blood and soil and often they will turn against them.
	My great nightmare is if there is a shooting war with the Chinese, how many of the people on board our ships, flying our airplanes, even in our submarines, how many of those people are actually going to turn against the United States?
	I mean, imagine that you're a white man.
	In the Chinese Navy, I mean, that's hard to imagine.
	And you start shooting against a white country, I think you'd be tempted to turn against the Chinese.
	I don't blame the Chinese for this.
	They are reacting to the normal ties of blood, heritage, language, history.
	I blame, of course, the United States for letting these people in and giving them high positions of responsibility where they become familiar with important security data.
	It is absolutely idiotic, and as I said, the United States security services are banned from any kind of racial profiling, whereas, certainly in the case of Chinese, it would be an obvious first step to protecting our secrets.
	Another commenter. I have listened with interest to you reporting on Hurricane Helene.
	Most white people who live in the Appalachian portions of western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee settled in the early 1800s.
	The United States government supported this.
	However, In the 1930s, the federal government seized land in North Carolina and Tennessee to make the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
	Many white families were dispossessed.
	The same thing happened with Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, Mammoth Cave National Park in Kentucky.
	The fabric of these white families was ripped apart by the federal government to build tourist attractions.
	The federal government has even intentionally flooded mountain towns.
	High-trust white towns like Judson, North Carolina and Japan, North Carolina.
	I never knew there was a Japan, North Carolina.
	Those towns were flooded for hydroelectric dams.
	In the 1970s, the federal government flooded out the Teleco Plains in Tennessee to build a lake for boating.
	It wasn't even for electric generation, purely for tourism.
	The federal government has been hostile to the white people of Appalachia for going on nearly a century.
	It's amazing how the 1930s really marked the turn in so many areas.
	Well, I would go on to add, I'm sure that those people were probably compensated for their land to some degree, although it may be that the compensation was grossly insufficient.
	I certainly can't judge.
	And they would have had no compensation for being uprooted and having to resettle.
	My suspicion is that if there were any kind of prejudice against those people, it certainly wasn't because they were white.
	It's because they were poor and probably wouldn't be able to organize and sue the government.
	But I would add a different element or a different episode to this dispossession of whites in the mountain areas as part of the Manhattan Project.
	To build a bomb during the Second World War, Oak Ridge National Laboratory took over 60,000 acres in East Tennessee.
	About 6,000 people were forced out off their land with just a few weeks' notice.
	They were compensated, but many people claimed it was well below market.
	A man named Curtis Allen Hendricks received only $850 in the U.S. government for his 60-acre farm.
	Another farmer said, they didn't pay enough to replace the type of place that you had.
	We were very poorly paid for the land, and also we had a lot of other people who were looking for land, so that made it even harder.
	Well, yes, you've got 6,000 people kicked off their land.
	They're all looking to buy up land or at least get another start.
	Of course, if the people who'd been moved off the land had been blacks, or Cherokee Indians, or any American Indians, we would have heard about it over and over and over, but since it was poor whites, no one talks about it and no one cares.
	I would add, of course, at the time, the government thought this was necessary for the war effort, and they wanted to save money, I'm sure, in compensation.
	Here is another comment.
	I'd like to know if Mr. Taylor has ever read or has had any contact with Victor Davis Hanson.
	Yes, I've read a number of things that he's written, and I am very pleased with his opposition to cultural dispossession.
	The trouble with Victor Davis Hanson is, like so many conservatives, he will not dare to step over the line and talk explicitly about race.
	However, he does say some pretty good things about the transformation of the American Southwest due to immigration.
	And my position has always been, I'm grateful for the things that people are willing to say, and I don't usually reproach them for the things they are unwilling to say.
	As for whether or not I know Victor Davis Hanson personally, if I did so, I would not say so, because simply knowing me could be potentially dangerous for someone in his respectable position.
	Even respectable people are only semi-respectable if they take dissenting views, some of which he takes, so I would not wish to jeopardize his career.
	Here we have yet another comment.
	Two weeks ago, Mr.
	Taylor referred to Parchman Farm and the state prison in Mississippi.
	Oops, let's see.
	This reminded me of a song I have long admired by the late, great Moe's Allison.
	And he sent a link to it.
	Well, I've always liked that song, too.
	I used to listen to a version by John Mayall and the Blues Breakers.
	It featured John Mayle on harmonica and Eric clapped it on guitar.
	You can find it on YouTube, but I think it's really quite a good song.
	Parchman Farm, of course, came up when I was talking about the prison system in Mississippi.
	I had originally made some sweeping comments about the South not having had formalized prisons for many years and that they had rented out their prisoners in chain gangs and also to farmers who would use them on their land.
	They surrendered them out to railroads also to build railroads.
	But as it turns out, Mississippi really was the one who did that most and really didn't have a proper state prison until very early in the 20th century, and that was Parchman Farm.
	Another comment. We have lots of comments this time.
	How does criticism of Amy Wax's stance on affirmative action withstand scrutiny?
	When the universities themselves, as reported in corporate media, are admitting, lamenting, the fact that admissions demographics have shifted away from BIPOCs since the Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action.
	They're making Amy Wax's point for her, yet punishing her for noticing it.
	Yes, one of the things that she has been punished for saying, and we've talked about this in some detail, the kind of punishment that Amy Wax of UPenn Law School has suffered.
	Was for pointing out that black law students almost never graduate in the upper half of their class, and it's rare to be in the upper half, and she had never found one in the upper quarter of their graduating classes.
	She also apparently has said to a black student that the only reason she was a double Ivy, that is to say gone to two Ivy League schools, was because she was an Affirmative Action student.
	Well, this is one of those things that you're not supposed to notice.
	You are supposed to think that, well, yes, Affirmative Action is wonderful because it gets these people into these universities, into these demanding and exclusive universities.
	But if you then point out to someone, yes, this is how you got here, then that's terribly insensitive.
	That's even racist. So our commenter is 100% absolutely correct.
	You are supposed to appreciate affirmative action, but never point out its effects on a particular individual person.
	It's a little bit like the Great Replacement.
	You're never supposed to notice that it's happening, and if you in fact notice it and you say you don't like it, then you're a white supremacist and a thoroughly bad person.
	So, Amy Wax, yes, she's being persecuted and punished most egregiously, and I'm glad to see that so many people all around the country are rushing to her defense.
	We'll see how this plays out.
	Final comment. I've been talking to someone about racial diversity being an insurmountable source of division and conflict.
	I have cited the book Bowling Alone, and to which this person raises the 19th and 20th century division and conflict between wasps, Irish, Italians, etc.
	in America. Aside from responding with, they're all white, what is a good response?
	Are there any good resources on this question?
	As a matter of fact, there is a pretty good source.
	It's a book I reviewed some time ago called Ethnic Identity.
	It's written by Richard Alba.
	It's published by Yale University Press.
	And he makes the point that the melting pot has worked brilliantly for Europeans.
	He says that after three generations in the United States, various ethnics, no matter where they're from, if they're European, they become indistinguishable in average household income and, and this is most important, how likely they are to marry outside their ethnic group.
	So, after three generations, Italians, Irish, Hungarians, Norwegians, Brits, Englishmen, all of these people become essentially statistically indistinguishable.
	The only exception, as Richard Alba points out, is Jews.
	They are considerably less likely to marry outside their ethnic group, and they have higher average incomes.
	It is remarkable that they be less likely to marry outside their ethnic group because I believe they're only about two and a half, three percent of the U.S. population.
	So you would think they'd have a harder time finding each other, but no.
	They find each other quite successfully and are less likely to marry out, even if they've been in the United States for three generations or more.
	So, thank you very much for all those comments.
	We very much appreciate hearing from you.
	We love to hear from you about stories we might have missed.
	We love to hear comments on the stories that we have presented to you in the previous week.
	And of course, if we make any errors, we would love to hear from you about that.
	You can get to me straight away by going to amren.com and clicking on the Contact Us tab.
	And if you send a comment or some kind of criticism, some kind of pointing out things we might have missed, that will come straight to me.
	Thank you very much.
	Now, you'll be glad to know that the National Institutes of Health plans to wipe out structural racism and the effect it may have on aging.
	NIH has awarded nearly $4 million to two public universities to explore the effects of structural racism on cognitive aging.
	That's a nice way of saying going gaga as you get older.
	Michigan State University and Rutgers University.
	They each received $3.7 million.
	These were five-year grants from the NIH's National Institute of Aging.
	I didn't know there was such a thing, but apparently there is.
	The researchers said this examination is essential for developing appropriate strategies to address racial inequities in accelerated aging.
	Particularly in communities where black Americans live and desire to age in place.
	Racial inequities in accelerated aging.
	That suggests to me that black people go gaga sooner and more rapidly than white people.
	That is, in fact, a well-established phenomenon.
	Their cognitive decline is greater and more rapid than whites.
	Whites go into cognitive decline sooner and more rapidly than Asians.
	But we have to blame at least the cognitive decline of blacks on racism.
	And this is particularly in communities where, as the It says black Americans live and desire to age in place.
	What's that mean? That means living around other blacks is going to be bad for their mental acuity?
	I don't know. In any case, Baltimore, which has a black majority population, was selected as the location for this study in order to help researchers consider the, quote, study of cumulative lifetime exposure to historical, enduring, and contemporary markers of structural racism.
	Well, it seems to me, if racism is the problem, you shouldn't be studying older black Americans in a black-majority town.
	Baltimore's run by black people.
	It's full of black people.
	The police are black.
	And if they are going gaga sooner, it's hard to blame it on whites.
	It seems to me, if you really wanted to get some effect of racism on cognitive decline in blacks, You'd compare blacks who are getting old in an all-black place and blacks who are getting old in an overwhelmingly white place, but that's not what this is going to do.
	Apparently, according to the study, Baltimore is also the home of the longest history.
	of legalized BSE-based structural racism.
	What does that mean?
	That means built and social environment structural racism, according to the project's researchers.
	So apparently what they're doing is they're saying, okay, whatever this is, built and social environment structural racism.
	They're going to say, because we have declared Baltimore to be the longest history of legalized racism of that kind.
	That's where we're going to study these black people who are going gaga, who are getting old among other black people.
	All very mysterious to me.
	Now, the person at Rutgers who's getting the money is Danielle L. B.T. Moody, Associate Professor and Chancellor Scholar for Inclusive Excellence in Multi-Level Racism and Lifespan Health and Aging.
	Isn't that a handle?
	Associate Professor and Chancellor Scholar for Inclusive Excellence in Multi-Level Racism and Lifespan Health and Aging.
	Needless to say, Danielle L. Beattie Moody is an African-Americanist.
	I looked up her resume.
	She's already had eight grants from the National Institute of Aging for a total of $1,211,000.
	She's also had $200,000 for the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities.
	I didn't know there was such a national institute, but there is.
	All of this money is for racism and aging study of this horrible phenomenon.
	Oh my, the structural racism this woman must have faced to collect, what is that, nearly $1.5 million in grants?
	But why does she need yet more money?
	Hasn't she figured it all out already with $1.4 million?
	It's all Whitey's fault.
	Case closed. No more research needed.
	But I guess not.
	We always need to know more about how it's all Whitey's fault.
	And to quote Nina Simone, the singer Nina Simone, oh, to be young, gifted, and black.
	And that was back in 1969.
	Well, think how things have improved since then.
	Gracious Danielle L. Beattie Moody, oh, to be gifted, young, gifted, and black.
	Boy, you can clean up right now, can't you?
	Oh, dear. Well, you know, the thing about these grants is they're determined to find something that doesn't exist out of the structural racism.
	How does structural racism really make old black people go goofy?
	How does it work? I mean, how could that even possibly work?
	It's like millions for researching, I don't know, the mating habits of unicorns.
	I mean, they've got to have mating habits, right?
	Even if we can't even track a single unicorn down, this stuff is endless.
	It's like voodoo, black magic.
	Well, here is a story from Europe.
	The European Court of Justice has ruled that everyone Of the 20 million women living in Afghanistan qualify for refugee status in the European Union.
	They just need to show up and apply.
	No need for an individual application.
	If you're a woman living in Afghanistan, you show up and you say, asylum, you're in like Flint.
	Now, the European Court of Justice was asked to rule on this question.
	Can the numerous forms of discrimination that women in Afghanistan are exposed to be considered together, and do they constitute persecution under the Geneva Refugee Convention?
	Well, by adding up all of the Islamist domestic policies of the Taliban, which returned to power in 2021 after we had kicked them out of power 20 years before, The whole package was interpreted by the European Court of Justice as impairing human dignity through its cumulative effect.
	So, hypothetically, if all of these Afghan women could be transported to the European Union, that would increase its population by $20 million.
	Likewise, it sets a legal precedent, it seems to me, for all would-be female refugees to argue that their own home states, such as, say, some of the Gulf states or Saudi Arabia, create an equally hostile environment for women and are persecuting them.
	Now, luckily for the Europeans, in Afghanistan, women can't travel by themselves.
	They have to be accompanied by a male relative.
	Especially, they can't travel overseas, so probably not all 20 million are going to show up anytime soon.
	Now, it makes me wonder how many transgender Afghan men, they're going to start identifying as women.
	What if they show up and say, I'm a woman, and I just suffer so terribly under the Taliban rule that I'm a refugee?
	Are they going to be let in without any kind of individual vetting too?
	I would guess probably open homosexuals don't lead very happy lives in Afghanistan either, and I don't see how they wouldn't qualify.
	I guess the question always has been to me, how do you prove you're homosexual?
	That seems to be a little tricky matter.
	These days, I suppose it's going to be harder and harder to prove you're either a man or a woman.
	How do they do that?
	You've got plenty of people these days, even university presidents and potential judges who can't explain how you decide who's a woman.
	But if you're an Afghan woman, theoretically you can get into the European Union just by showing up.
	You're an official Azali or you are recognized as a refugee.
	Now, there has always been some conversation, too, about whether or not people with AIDS, who are coming from places where people with AIDS are treated rather rudely, shouldn't they be let into?
	As I recall, there was some discussion about that, and I believe a number of at least individuals have been let in because they had AIDS into the United States.
	They were refugees.
	I don't believe there was ever a blanket decision that That all people with AIDS from El Salvador, for example, should get in no questions asked.
	Anyway, this is the kind of foolishness that is filling Western countries with people who do not belong here, who cannot fit in, who do not fit in, and don't want to fit in.
	Now here is another European story.
	It's about Marianne Maréchal.
	She is the niece of Marine Le Pen, who is the current leader of the National Rally, which is the successor party to Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front.
	Well, Marion Maréchal just announced her decision to lead a new political party.
	She has founded it.
	It's her intention to unite the French right.
	Unite the French right.
	Well, I'm not sure uniting the right is in fact the best slogan, but in France it probably goes down without any difficulty.
	Since her stormy departure from Eric Zemmour's Reconquista party, Where she headed the list for the European elections, it seemed obvious that she was sooner or later going to start her own party.
	Now, Eric Zemmour is an Algerian—well, it's hard to say exactly—he is a Jewish person who had been living in—his parents had been living in Algeria.
	He started this Reconquista party in France.
	He has been very, very tough on the idea that Islam is totally incompatible with France.
	However, she, and she was once, Marion Maréchal was once sort of the number two person in that party, but they had a falling out, which we'll get into later.
	But Marion Maréchal announced her new movement is to be called Identité Liberté.
	And she says she wants to draw inspiration from scenarios that have ensured success for the right in other European countries.
	She's thinking first of Italy, which in September 2022 brought Georgia Maloney to power at the head of a coalition of three conservative nationalist parties.
	For Marianne Maréchal, a coalition is the best way of preserving the ideological specificities of each party while ensuring effective collaboration.
	She is a member of the European Parliament, and she is a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group.
	And with three of her former colleagues from Zemmour's party, she is representing France in the European Parliament.
	She defines her program as a civilizational right, a civilizational right that is anti-woke, anti-assistance and anti-tax racketeering.
	A position that could be summed up as liberal conservative in French politics.
	I wish she would say a few things she's in favor of rather than being anti-woke, anti-assistance, and anti-tax racketeering.
	The title of her movement, Identité Liberté, sums up the two main thrusts.
	She wants to defend identity.
	That means fighting immigration and the Islamization of French society and of Europe, also promoting France's traditional Christian heritage.
	The defense of freedoms, that's the liberté part, covers such freedoms as freedom of expression, freedom of education, and free enterprise.
	Maréchal takes note of the balance of power currently in favor of the Rassemblement National, the RN, that's her aunt's party, that's Marine Le Pen's party, within the French right.
	She would not consider joining with her aunt.
	She left that party in 2017.
	It's nevertheless clear that she must support Marine Le Pen as a candidate for the national right in the 2027 presidential elections.
	As she says, the French people, by their votes, have declared Marine Le Pen the head of any kind of serious identitarian movement.
	Now, while Marion Maréchal does not deny Eric Zemmour's contribution to French politics, she does consider that there was a fundamental political disagreement which prevented her from staying with his party.
	What it worked out to was that the reconquista, or the reconquête in French leadership, Eric Zemmour, And his number two collaborator by the name of Knafo, they wanted to make the National Front, the National Rally, I mean to say, the main adversary, whereas she wanted to tackle the left.
	This disagreement resulted, in her words, in an exclusion and a smear campaign against her, and this led to an impasse, and she can no longer work with Eric Zemmour.
	Now, her approach to this is quite interesting.
	She is an identitarian.
	That's the first thing she is.
	But she also tends to be a free market advocate.
	Whereas the National Front and its successor, the National Rally, have always been identitarian, but more socialist, more populist.
	And this seems to me to be a growing trend in Europe You have the, I'm sorry, in Germany, you have the alternative for Deutschland.
	This is a free market and very, very firmly identitarian party.
	And now you have this recently produced BSF, which is the Sarah Wagenkrecht Alliance.
	This is a new party, which is identitarian, but also tends to be more socialist.
	And ideally, if you can get all the identitarians, whatever their position may be, on other questions to work together, you can get some kind of real achievement, real acquisition of power at the national level.
	Very interesting. We'll see what happens as a result of Marian Marichal's attempt.
	I've always had a high opinion of her.
	She has been much more firm about national identitarian questions than her aunt.
	She tends not to compromise.
	She's articulate.
	She's nice looking. And I wish her every success with her new party.
	Moving on to Viktor Orban, who is probably my favorite European politician these days.
	He says the European Union is in a much more difficult situation than it was 13 years ago when Hungary last held the rotating presidency of the European Council.
	This is, of course, this year.
	They hold the presidency.
	And he says Europe is being left behind by the United States and China in terms of competitiveness.
	Europe's share of global trade is constantly decreasing.
	European companies are paying up to five times more for natural gas and two to three times more for electricity than their counterparts in the US while spending less on research and development.
	Of course, one of the reasons they're paying so much for natural gas is because they've been boycotting Russian natural gas, which had been the main energy supplier, certainly for Germany and other parts of Europe, before the Russia-Ukraine war.
	The Hungarian presidency plans to address these problems by hosting a meeting of European leaders, a competitiveness summit, On November 8 in Budapest.
	I'm sure that would be a very, very interesting thing to attend.
	As far as migration is concerned, He says he's been criticized for Hungary's decision to build a fence on its southern border to keep out illegal immigrants.
	But he says eventually every European leader will come to the same conclusion.
	He's been reiterating the necessity of fences ever since the beginning of the migration crisis in 2015.
	Got to keep them out.
	He says it is an illusion to believe that illegals who have entered the EU, have sneaked into the European Union, can be deported, or will go home voluntarily.
	He says the only migrants who will not stay are those we do not let in.
	I'm afraid that is an unfortunately realistic assessment of things.
	The only way to keep them out is to not let them in because once they're in, they'll find some gimcrack, some kind of a jiggery-pokery way to stay in.
	Some court will let them stay or they'll get an exclusion order and nobody will come and arrest them.
	So, he says that the only way for them not to have to be expelled, and they can't be expelled, is not let them in.
	He has warned, this is Viktor Orban, warned that illegal migration has contributed to the rise of anti-Semitism, homophobia, and violence against women.
	No doubt all true.
	He said the lack of a successful common migration policy is spurring member states to protect their own internal borders within the Schengen area.
	The Schengen area is a group of 27 or is it 28 countries in Europe that have abolished internal borders.
	But recently, Germany has started controlling its own border after a brutal knife attack at a festival in Solingen by an Islamist who decided he was just going to kill as many Christians as possible.
	If the Hungarian presidency of the European Council, if it moves forward in all these aspects, then the motto of Viktor Orban's presidency, which began in July and lasts until December, will be, make Europe great again, said Mr.
	Orban. That's going to be his motto, make Europe great again.
	Well, we wish him every success.
	Back to the United States.
	According to a recent poll, 59% of mainstream voters say that all illegals should be deported.
	59%. That includes 30% who agree strongly and 29% who agree.
	Only 14%, just 1 in 7 people, strongly disagree with the idea that every illegal should be booted.
	This is a Marist poll.
	It finds a shift from March 2024, that's just a few months ago, when only 51% as opposed to 59% wanted all illegals out.
	The federal government, of course, has permitted the growth of the population of illegal immigrants to at least 15 million people, and who knows, maybe as many as 35 million people.
	Now, deportations of every last illegal, this is backed by 60% of whites, 53% of blacks, 57% of Hispanics, and 56% of people under 30, and 57% of people over 60.
	70% of white voters who did not go to college support massive deportation, but only 48% of white college graduates do.
	That's a big difference.
	70% of people who didn't go to college, 48% of whites who didn't go to college.
	You go to college, as the great Joe Sobren used to say, to get the right attitudes towards non-whites and the means to live as far away from them as possible.
	So, you manage to live far away from them, so you don't think they should all be deported.
	It's all part of the indoctrination you get when you go to university.
	9% of non-college whites strongly opposed total deportation.
	And 21% of white college graduates strongly opposed deporting them all.
	Many of these college graduate voters now disdain ordinary Americans, in part because they support Donald Trump and these white college graduates vote Democrat.
	Their dominance in the Democrat Party ensures that only 32% of Democrats favor deportations.
	While 29% strongly disagree that they should be deported.
	89% of Republicans want all illegals out, and just 2% of GOP supporters strongly disagree with that idea.
	But back to some of the earlier statistics.
	I think the racial statistics are remarkable.
	60% of whites want them out, 53% of blacks, 57% of Hispanics, and 56% of people under 30.
	I don't have figures here for Asians.
	Maybe the sample wasn't good enough on that.
	But majorities of whites, blacks, and Hispanics, and more Hispanics than blacks, want every single illegal out.
	Well... I hope that they will get their wish.
	Now moving back to Europe, here is a story about Sweden.
	And it's remarkable and gratifying that the Swedes are finally tumbling to the obvious.
	This is an account from a mainstream Swedish publication called Samnytt, S-A-M-N-Y-T-T. While immigrants from Europe and the West fare well in Sweden, it's worse for those who come from areas and regions with the world's most dysfunctional and destructive cultures.
	Now, it's always cultures, isn't it?
	Biology's got nothing to do with it.
	It's always culture. The article goes on to say, these also often have Islam in common, and it is from those countries that Sweden has let in enormous numbers of people.
	Well, yes, it has.
	For a long time it was said that everyone who comes here wants to become Swedes.
	No one believes this anymore.
	And now Sweden is in a situation where clans and gangs with mafia-like methods infiltrate all levels of society and take full advantage of our high social cohesion.
	A problem that is completely self-inflicted and will affect Sweden for generations to come.
	That's a remarkable admission from a mainstream Swedish publication.
	Minister of Migration.
	Maria Malmer Stenegard, sorry, Stenegard, Stenegard, I beg your pardon.
	Maria Malmer Stenegard says, in just 20 years, the number of foreign-born people in Sweden has increased from one to two million.
	And in an interview, she now admits that who comes matters.
	And she now believes immigration should benefit Sweden.
	What an idea!
	She says people who are relatively similar blend in quickly.
	The many immigrants Sweden has admitted from the Middle East and North Africa, on the other hand, have both a lower educational background and a completely different cultural background.
	They also come from completely different societies and values, she says.
	Well, good for you, Maria Malmer Stenergaard.
	It's about time you noticed.
	She went on to say, Well, Maria Malmer Stenergaard can't bring herself to say race.
	I wish she would, but she's on the right track.
	Here's a sobering and interesting story.
	The math scores of California's average 8th graders on standardized tests in 2021 were at about the same level as the skills that 5th graders should have.
	In other words, 8th graders are three years behind in grade level.
	Students fell behind each year incrementally, even before the pandemic, starting in 3rd grade when tests are first given.
	Progress in California students completely stalled in the academic year 2021 when most students were in remote learning.
	Eighth graders overall scored at the same level they did when they took the sixth grade test two years earlier.
	In other words, they made no progress.
	The results highlight massive gaps in math learning that existed long before the pandemic.
	And I bet you can guess just what sort of gaps they were.
	Black and Hispanic students in 8th grade averaged a score approximating what 4th graders need to meet.
	So they are 4 years behind.
	White students, they suffered from COVID and slipped somewhat behind grade level.
	Asians, who were already above grade level, did not lose ground.
	COVID and remote learning didn't slow them down.
	And in 8th grade, they were performing at 9th grade level.
	This means Asian 8th graders were the equivalent of 5 grades ahead of Hispanic and Black 8th graders.
	White 8th graders were about 3.5 grades ahead of Hispanics and Blacks.
	Asians, again, were 1.5 grades ahead of the Whites.
	Now, before COVID came along, whites and Asians were a little bit closer together.
	Instead of being one and a half grades apart, the Asians were scoring about one grade higher.
	My interpretation of all this is, during COVID and remote learning, only Asians continued to make progress.
	Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks were not as disciplined during their absences from school, and they lost ground.
	Or at least, they made no progress.
	That's a more accurate way to look at it.
	They made no progress because they were not paying attention.
	They didn't have to go to school.
	This remote learning was a joke for them.
	And that means Asian 8th graders, for whom it was not a joke, they're now 5 grades ahead of Blacks and 1.5 grades ahead of Whites.
	One wonders how wide the gap will be by grade 12.
	Now, I have often said that if you want to know what the future of the United States is going to be like, there is one statistic that probably tells you more than any other, and that is this.
	I guess it's two sets of statistics, really.
	One is that blacks are twice as likely to drop out of high school as whites, and Hispanics are twice as likely as blacks to drop out of high school.
	But the really important statistic is this.
	By the time they get to the 12th grade, the 12th grade, they're seniors in high school, blacks and Hispanics are performing academically At about the level of white or Asian eighth graders.
	They are four grades behind.
	Four grades behind.
	Hispanics are usually a little bit better than blacks.
	And Asians are better than whites, but on average, they are four grades behind those groups.
	And of course, Hispanics and Blacks, they're supposed to be the great backbone of the United States to come, and they're leaving high school four grades behind.
	As I say, that's one of the most important statistics you can use to predict the future of the United States.
	Now, more numbers.
	I like numbers. I hope our listeners like numbers, too.
	They are much more persuasive to me than individual anecdotal accounts of things that happen in the world.
	The Daily Telegraph, which is a pretty good newspaper in Britain, it did an analysis of official data to produce a table of more than 130 nationalities living in Britain ranked It's the first time such an analysis has been carried out amid claims that there has been an institutional cover-up of these numbers.
	Now, I think there probably have been cover-ups of these numbers.
	Why would the authorities want to conceal that there are vastly different crime and incarceration rates among different groups?
	I just can't imagine why, but they don't want you to know.
	Senior Tory MPs have urged both conservative and labor governments to publish data the way Denmark does and the way some United States states do so as to enable crime rates on the basis of different groups.
	A backbench amendment to Rishi Sunak's sentencing bill would have required the government each year to present a report to Parliament detailing the nationality, visa, and asylum status of every offender convicted in English and Wales courts in the previous 12 months.
	However, they went into a general election and the bill was ditched.
	Former Tory minister Neil O'Brien says it's shameful.
	The government refuses to publish so much of the information that it already holds on this subject.
	This should be available to the public.
	Well, the Data Telegraph, after having done a careful evaluation of these crime statistics, I'm sorry, incarceration statistics, it found that for British citizens, now this is British citizens of all races, mind you, but British citizens, the rate of incarceration is 14.27 per 10,000 people.
	And interestingly enough, the highest incarceration rate was for Albanians.
	That was 232 per 10,000 people, or 17 times the rate for British citizens.
	Albanians. Albanians are then followed by Kosovans from Kosovo.
	I mean, those are related populations.
	I'm guessing a lot of these people are probably gypsies, not ordinary white Albanians and Kosovars.
	But in any case, the Kosovans were in jail, in prison, at 11 times the British rate.
	Then came Vietnamese at 10.5 times the rate, Algerians at 9 times the British rate, Jamaicans 8 times, Eritreans 8 times, Iraqis 7.4 times, and Somalis 7 times more likely to be in prison than British citizens.
	Again, we're talking about all British citizens.
	I'd be curious to know if there's a possible way to break out British citizens also by nationality.
	Because I would bet you if you were making a calculation based on white British citizens, as opposed to these Algerians and Vietnamese and Eritreans and Albanians, the numbers would be higher still.
	Who had the lowest imprisonment rates?
	Well, the Germans.
	Germans, only 4.68 per 10,000 Germans living in Britain.
	That is only one-third the British citizenry, followed by Italy.
	They are imprisoned at 36% of the British rate.
	India. Isn't this interesting?
	Indians have a lower crime rate than Brits.
	44% of the British rate.
	Greece. 45%.
	US. Americans.
	Americans are only half as likely as British citizens to end up in prison.
	Sri Lanka. That's pretty good, too.
	51%. France.
	61% of the British rate.
	And China. 9.4%.
	Surprising to me that the Chinese are that much more likely, more likely, say, than Americans or Greeks or Indians to be incarcerated, but still they are considerably less likely to be incarcerated than the British themselves.
	So it's wonderful to get this data before the public.
	Let's hope it is well publicized.
	Let's hope that the British government is absolutely obligated and forced To make this information available to the public every year.
	These are startling disparities.
	And when you have groups that are 17 times more likely than Brits, 10 times, 7 times, 11 times, this is very significant.
	The public needs to know about this.
	Obviously, policy should take this into consideration.
	Now, here's one of those kill the messenger stories of which the news is so frequently full.
	Chicago public schools have voted unanimously to inaugurate a five-year strategic plan that vows a, quote, renewed focus on equity.
	A renewed focus, as if they haven't focused on it enough.
	And it's going to move away from ranking schools based on student outcomes.
	Can't have this school ranking business.
	As public school chief executive officer Pedro Martinez said, everything is done through an equity lens.
	Well, I bet it is.
	Our new approach does away with school rankings and labels.
	And just like our shift in defining student success, we're not going to look at a narrow set of outcome data.
	Too narrow, too narrow.
	The school board vice president, Elizabeth Todd Breland, an African-Americanist, she cited Chicago's past long-standing structural racism and socioeconomic inequality as a reason to move away from these old-fashioned quantitative rankings.
	Opportunity gaps for our students have persisted, says Ms.
	Breland. The five-year strategic plan called Together We Rise faces funding challenges because COVID relief funds are drying up and Chicago public schools face a projected half-billion-dollar deficit for the next school year.
	Oh, dear. Oh, dear.
	but they're going to splash out money for a new five-year strategic plan
	with a renewed focus on equity.
	Our new approach is to define student success more holistically, said Pedro.
	More holistically?
	Hmm. Does that mean you get an automatic A for not committing murder during the school year?
	Maybe an A or a B, I don't know, for not getting busted for drugs?
	It's all going to be holistic. Grades aren't going to count for much.
	Ah, I don't know. Maybe if you wore your baseball cap straight away around rather than backwards, is that going to improve your grades?
	Kept your pants pulled up?
	The former accountability system encouraged families to select schools with the highest ratings, and they pitted schools against each other, said Chief Education Officer Bogdana Chukumbova.
	She outlined the plan's targeted priorities, including a new Black Student Success Plan, which seeks to improve the daily experience for Black students and offers pathways to multilingualism.
	Multilingualism. Does that mean they'll learn how to speak standard English?
	No, that would be racist.
	The board conducted its first survey earlier this year, a series of roundtable discussions called Black Student Success Community Roundtables, so as to get public opinion.
	Black student success.
	Well, well, well. Do we care about anybody else besides black students?
	I guess not.
	But again, they're going to grade holistically, and they're not going to compare schools.
	So they're going to get rid of all the information On which you can base some sense of whether or not students are doing better or worse, whether one student is performing better than another student, whether one school is better than another school.
	This is, of course, absolutely insane.
	Again, it's killing the messenger so that they won't have to face the music.
	But this is the way Chicago is going, and I suspect a lot of other big school districts are going in exactly the same direction with everything done through an equity lens.
	They do this, of course, because invariably it's the black students who do poorly, the white students, the Asian students do well, Hispanics do poorly, usually a little bit better than the blacks, but because you don't want to compare students, you don't want to compare schools, you remove the data.
	You remove the data so that you don't know that all of this is happening according to race.
	Of course, everybody knows anyway, but they'll just be more in the dark about it.
	There are some interesting statistics.
	We don't usually talk about homicide rates of infants.
	But I just found these intriguing.
	And it turns out that for the years 2017 to 2020, the homicide rate per 100,000 births for infants is 7.11.
	That means 7 out of 100,000 infants are murdered.
	Approximately half of these homicides are in the first year of life, and they occur by and large among infants three months of age or younger.
	I'm sorry. What is considered an infant homicide is of someone who is a year or younger.
	And 52% of these occur in infants just three months of age or younger.
	They are most likely to be victims of murder.
	The rate of murder...
	Of infants is higher for little boys than little girls.
	It's 8.22 per 100,000 as opposed to 5.95.
	Isn't that interesting? The boys are more likely to be killed.
	The homicide rate was highest for infants born to black mothers.
	That was 16.21 per 100,000 as opposed to whites, 5.88 per Hispanics are actually less likely.
	Hispanic infants are less likely to be murdered than white infants.
	4.75 per 100,000, as opposed to 5.88.
	And lowest, not surprising, for infants born to Asian mothers.
	That's 2.11 per 100,000.
	So, those infant homicide rates again...
	If they're black, 16.21.
	Whites, 5.88.
	Hispanics, 4.75.
	Asians, 2.11.
	Asians at the lowest.
	And I'm a little surprised that white infants are more likely to be murdered than Hispanic infants, but so saith the data.
	The rate of homicide was four times higher for the infants of mothers born in the United States, 8.51, than for infants of mothers born outside the United States.
	Isn't that interesting? And then your infant is only one quarter as likely to be murdered as someone who's born in the United States.
	All these intriguing data.
	It'd be interesting to know more about how they arrived.
	Well, what this means, what explains some of these findings.
	Well... It appears that we have run out of time, as we always do.
	It's always a problem on these podcasts.
	And again, I apologize for having to go solo here without my indispensable co-host, but as I said before, he is doing good works in North Carolina.
	We will hope to have him back next week, and I'll hope to hear all about his adventures and experiences there.
	Meantime, thank you very much for your attention.
	It's always a pleasure and an honor to be with you, and it will be something to which I will look forward to with great anticipation next week.

▲